Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 447 posts

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#201

Post by nullc »

The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is.

Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place?

Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that it can likely be exploited or extracted in many different ways including via dragnet surveillance and espionage.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#202

Post by throwGuardian »

nullc wrote: post #201

The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is. Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place? Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that…

Because their business model relies on your personal data?

The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail.

Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they knowingly overreach their limits. Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#203

Post by onetimemanytime »

throwGuardian wrote: post #198

I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution. As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant wit…

if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#204

Post by Mirioron »

jcims wrote: post #74
drevil-v2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

Doesn’t seem like the issue is with the state, it’s that we’re entrusting third parties with enough information to paint an incredibly intimate portrait of our personalities and proclivities. This in turn is available to the state at essentially zero cost, which may then be leveraged heavily to ensure compliance.

You're right. The issue indeed is that these companies can just vacuum up all of this data and keep it around. The problem, however, is that this is possible now. This means that if people (or companies) somehow figure out a way to either keep this information from the state or keep this information from being collected, then the state themselves could start collecting (some of) this information. We've seen it before that intelligence agencies don't seem to care about spying on their own citizens through technicalities and then abusing that information.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#205

Post by Mirioron »

PeterisP wrote: post #129
nilkn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He allegedly did something quite bad, and if guilty I’d like him to face justice. But if the cost of convicting him is setting a precedent that effectively strips hundreds of millions of people of their privacy and subjects us all to an unofficial form of state surveillance, then let him walk.

This seems just as with any other search warrant - it's a specific search sanctioned by the court; just as a physical warrant for your house will involve LEO's that can search your underwear drawers for to verify if there's something relevant for the case, the same applies for your online records. There's no new precedent involved, noone ever had any privacy whatsoever from a properly court-approved search. What's th…

The precedent lies in law enforcement getting their hands on minute by minute details of your life from a year ago and probably much more. There might not be protections against this, but there should be. Judges shouldn't have too much power.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#206

Post by throwGuardian »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #203
throwGuardian wrote: post #198

I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution. As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant wit…

if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.

I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable "probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for anything to nail him

As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them despite this knowledge. How many, even within the HN community, will bother transitioning away from Google, after reading this?

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#207

Post by lrem »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #184
keiferski wrote: post #170

The deeper problem is that old laws are being used to deal with new behaviors. This inadequacy will continue to grow as human beings and computers slowly merge over the next century or two, where at some point, “your Google data” will be more-and-more equivalent to “all of your thoughts.” Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gath…

I'd say that very much depends on why you believe the warrant process exists in the first place. I honestly don't know that much about the historical context of search warrants. Do they exist because philosophers of old believed in a right to privacy as an end unto itself? Or do they exist for some more practical reason, like because they were used for extra legal retaliation against enemies of the state, or for inti…

You have just changed my understanding of the world. Thank you.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#208

Post by ReptileMan »

guelo wrote: post #22
buboard wrote: post #16

at what point does this projection of judicial power against individuals in the name of safety (whose safety? whats really at stake here even?) become terrorism?

A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like how they just did to Iran's army, and now apparently they can legally assassinate any Iranian soldier. What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now, they designated the US army as terrorists.

They designated parts of the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, which is not Iran Army.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#209

Post by thelittleone »

throwGuardian wrote: post #202
nullc wrote: post #201

The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is. Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place? Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that…

Because their business model relies on your personal data? The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail. Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they kn…

Unfortunately ending their data collection is not as simple as leaving Gmail. For example they have Google maps, analytics, recaptcha and the contents of emails sent from friends to your protonmail account.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#210

Post by onetimemanytime »

throwGuardian wrote: post #206
onetimemanytime wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.

I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable "probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for anything to nail him As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them despite this knowledge. How…

They said one year because its better to have more than less. Court /lawyers should've or should push back.
Post reply on HN